[[ Check out my Wordpress blog Context/Earth for environmental and energy topics tied together in a semantic web framework ]]

Thursday, March 17, 2005

Thy Name is Mud

The abiotic theory of fuel creation will keep resurfacing as long as people have a hyperactive imagination. Recently, on DailyKos and elsewhere, somehow a Cornell colleague of the late Thomas Gold, chemical geologist Larry Cathles, has been implicated in promoting the same abiotic theories. I read this article and don't see any explicit connection to abiotic genesis. Instead, I venture that of the huge amounts of petroleum and natural gas leaking out from current reservoirs (as Cathles describes), most of it leaked out over a long period of time. ... Let us all repeat: No use crying over spilled milk.

Moreover, the latest articles from the abiotic faction read like Guiness Book of World Records bids for the longest stream-of-consciousness paragraphs -- for amusement, see serious rambling here or here.

True, gullible people (by definition) get impressed quite readily. I find it very revealing to point out other scientific theories that Thomas Gold has been totally disproven on:

Steady State Theory

Holy Smoke! points out that the Big Bang theory has superceded precursor. theories

Moon is DEEPLY covered by very fine dust or similar crumbly material

Apparently, when Neil Armstrong and company touched ground at moonbase alpha, the lunar lander did not sink into the quicksand after all! You can believe NASA's official history, but then again why not the Capricorn One version?

Nice track record there. Apparently, Gold practiced a kind of "shotgun" approach to physics, spewing various theories in random directions.

The shotgun approach works to some degree -- throw enough mud at the wall and some will eventually stick. Unfortunately, like many of Gold's other ideas, the abiotic theory has not stuck. Scientists more than anyone else realize that their credibility suffers when they get proved wrong one too many times. Unfortunately, other professors within proximity of Gold at Cornell will have a hard time desoiling their reputations. Too bad that the crap that Gold flung ended up sticking on them.

Since I'm in my science-bashing mode (a phase I go through every so often, just for the sake of balance), I have to say that scientists can be wrong an awful lot before anyone takes notice, especially if they're famous. A Francis Crick or Stephen Hawking can pretty much say anything, and no matter how crazy or wrongheaded it is, it'll be lapped up. By the media, at least.

You can start reciting some of these scientists from memory: William Shockley, Linus Pauling,... They all have in common that they reached some level of notoriety, and then continued to gather interest because of their name. On the other hand, a young guy like Bell Lab's Jan Hendrik Schön (google "Bell Labs" and "fraud") has absolutely no future in peer-reviewed scientific circles.

Scientific analysis doesn't start off by name calling -- that's politics, and ad hominem to boot. But I realize you are invested in "Peak Oil" theory.

In reality, scientific inquiry rests on treating competing theories the same. They start at the same "starting" line and are held to the same standards of scientific proof.

There is actually more scientific proof for abiotic oil theory than "fossil" fuel theory.

There are no scientific models that explain "fossil" fuel theory. There has never been any scientific lab experiments that have been able to replicate "fossil" fuel formation.

On the contrary, there are both theoretical and lab experiments that support the abiotic model of oil formation in the mantel of the Earth.

"Fossil" theory violates the second law of thermodynamics (diminishing entropy). There is no organic/sedimentary model of oil formation because organic detritus has never been theoretically or experimentally shown to be converted to oil in the lower pressure and temperature existing in sedimentary deposits. In contrast to the scientific, mathamatical computations that support abiotic oil formation in the ultra high pressure and temperature of the Earth's mantel, backed up by lab experiments, replicating the temperature and pressure of the mantel, which did create a hydrogen-carbon (petroleum) system.

Interestingly enough, this lack of scientific scrutiny for "fossil" theory, exists in the face of the fact that the theory was first postulated in 1757, in the dark ages of science.

Meanwhile, abiotic theory has had over 50 years of rigorous scientific analysis and scrutiny. And, conforms to field observations and has been employed to recover commercial quanities of oil.

If scientific truth is your highest ideal, you should hold up each theory to the same standards of proof and rigorous analysis.

FACT:Organic detritus is made up of low stored energy potential chemical molecules.

FACT:Petroleum is made up of high stored energy potential chemical molecules.

The second law of thermodynamics (diminishing entropy) proscribes the conversion of a low stored energy state molecules to a high stored energy state molecules in a low temperature and pressure environment (sedimentary/crustal).

If you have come to this site, and are interested getting to the bottom of this controversy, I urge you to google the name J.F. Kenney, Gas Resources Corp., Houston, TX. On that website you will find a body of science that explains abiotic oil theory and is unchallenged by "Peak Oil" advocates.

Occam says to look for the simplest explanation. Fossil fuels exhibit a continuum of forms. From the lowly peat to lignite coal to more concentrated energy anthracite coal and on to petroleum, biological matter produced this entire range. Different amounts of compression over different ranges of time transformed the organic matter into different types of hydrocarbon fractionated material. What are known as fossil fuels. And this is all that made sense when we learned about this in the 6th and 7tth grades AIR.

You are like a shaman asked to explain his magic. You get angry that anybody would challenge your "BIG" magic. So you dance, stomping you feet, strangely mute, except for some mutterings of a 14th century monk.

Climate Primates

"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it. Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." - George Monbiot

"In news the rule is that liberals will watch the news, and conservatives will watch conservative news. A liberal will watch to see what you think, the conservative will watch to see how much you agree with him. This is why the headline world is so far to the right even of the content." - Stirling Newberry

"... it is calculable fact, week after week, on show after show -- unless you consider the mere act of reporting itself to be a 'liberal' act, which many movement conservatives do. " - Hunter

"The sneakiest form of literary subtlety, in a corrupt society, is to speak the plain truth. The critics will not understand you; the public will not believe you; your fellow writers will shake
their heads." - Edward Abbey

"The people of ____ have been led in ____ into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The ____ communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient that the public knows... We are today not far from a disaster." - TE Lawrence

"My life's the disease that could always change
With comparative ease, just given the chance
My life is the earth, 'twixt muscle and spade
I wait for the worth, digging for just one chance
As prospects diminish, as nightmares swell
Some pray for Heaven while we live in Hell" - E&TB

"The juicy stories keep popping out ... like clowns from a clown car." - James Wolcott"Why don't they talk about the issues?! We're fighting for our LIVES here!!" - Marc Maron"That's it man, game over man, game over, man! Game over!" - Hudson played by Bill Paxton-- Irwin Shaw, The Young Lions